Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.[6]

[wiki]

First-degree murder

Murder is the killing of another human being without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.[1][2][3] This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter.

Most societies, from ancient to modern, have considered murder a very serious crime deserving harsh punishment for purposes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation. There are many reasons why murder has been criminalized, including its costs to society as well as being considered intrinsically wrong.[4] For example, murder may be considered intrinsically wrong because it violates a right to life or is oppressive; murder may be costly to society by undermining law and order, by squandering potential accomplishments of the victims, by risking escalation of violence, or by spreading fear and grief.[4]

In most countries, a person convicted of murder is typically given a long prison sentence, possibly a life sentence where permitted. In other countries, the death penalty may be imposed for such an act; this practice, however, is becoming less common.[5]

Definition

The eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone (citing Edward Coke), in his Commentaries on the Laws of England set out the common law definition of murder, which by this definition occurs

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[8]

The elements of common law murder are:

Unlawful

killing

of a human

by another human

with malice aforethought.[9]

The Unlawful – This distinguishes murder from killings that are done within the boundaries of law, such as capital punishment, justified self-defence, or the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants as well as causing collateral damage to non-combatants during a war.[10]

Killing – At common law life ended with cardiopulmonary arrest[9] – the total and permanent cessation of blood circulation and respiration.[9] With advances in medical technology courts have adopted irreversible cessation of all brain function as marking the end of life.[9]

of a human – This element presents the issue of when life begins. At common law, a fetus was not a human being.[11] Life began when the fetus passed through the vagina and took its first breath.[9]

by another human – In early common law, suicide was considered murder.[9] The requirement that the person killed be someone other than the perpetrator excluded suicide from the definition of murder.

with malice aforethought – Originally malice aforethought carried its everyday meaning – a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."

The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:[12]

Intent to kill,

Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death,

Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or

Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony murder" doctrine).

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. In other words, "intent follows the bullet." Examples of deadly weapons and instruments include but are not limited to guns, knives, deadly toxins or chemicals or gases and even vehicles when intentionally used to harm one or more victims.

Under state of mind (iii), an "abandoned and malignant heart", the killing must result from the defendant's conduct involving a reckless indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury. An example of this is a 2007 law in California where an individual could be convicted of third-degree murder if he or she kills another person while driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances. In Australian jurisdictions, the unreasonable risk must amount to a foreseen probability of death (or grievous bodily harm in most states), as opposed to possibility.[13]

Under state of mind (iv), the felony-murder doctrine, the felony committed must be an inherently dangerous felony, such as burglary, arson, rape, robbery or kidnapping. Importantly, the underlying felony cannot be a lesser included offense such as assault, otherwise all criminal homicides would be murder as all are felonies.

As with most legal terms, the precise definition of murder varies between jurisdictions and is usually codified in some form of legislation. Even when the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter is clear, it is not unknown for a jury to find a murder defendant guilty of the lesser offence. The jury might sympathise with the defendant (e.g. in a crime of passion, or in the case of a bullied victim who kills their tormentor), and the jury may wish to protect the defendant from a sentence of life imprisonment or execution.

Degrees of murder

Many jurisdictions divide murder by degrees. The distinction between first- and second-degree murder exists, for example, in Canadian murder law and third-degree murder is recognized in U.S. murder law and Peruvian murder law.

The most common division is between first- and second-degree murder. Generally, second-degree murder is common law murder, and first-degree is an aggravated form. The aggravating factors of first-degree murder depend on the jurisdiction, but may include a specific intent to kill, premeditation, or deliberation. In some, murder committed by acts such as strangulation, poisoning, or lying in wait are also treated as first-degree murder.[14]

Common law

According to Blackstone, English common law identified murder as a public wrong.[15] At common law, murder is considered to be malum in se, that is an act which is evil within itself. An act such as murder is wrong or evil by its very nature. And it is the very nature of the act which does not require any specific detailing or definition in the law to consider murder a crime.[16]

Some jurisdictions still take a common law view of murder. In such jurisdictions, what is considered to be murder is defined by precedent case law or previous decisions of the courts of law. However, although the common law is by nature flexible and adaptable, in the interests both of certainty and of securing convictions, most common law jurisdictions have codified their criminal law and now have statutory definitions of murder.

Exclusions

General

Although laws vary by country, there are circumstances of exclusion that are common in many legal systems.

Self-defence: acting in self-defence or in defence of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defence killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place. In the case of self-defence it is called a "justifiable homicide".[17]

Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter.

In many common law countries, provocation is a partial defence to a charge of murder which acts by converting what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter (this is voluntary manslaughter, which is more severe than involuntary manslaughter).

Accidental killings are considered homicides. Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be considered criminal offenses; they are often considered manslaughter.

Suicide does not constitute murder in most societies. Assisting a suicide, however, may be considered murder in some circumstances.

Killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants, in accordance with lawful orders in war, is also generally not considered murder; although illicit killings within a war may constitute murder or homicidal war crimes. (see the Laws of war article)

Specific to certain countries

Capital punishment: some countries practice the death penalty. Capital punishment ordered by a legitimate court of law as the result of a conviction in a criminal trial with due process for a serious crime. The 47 Member States of the Council of Europe are prohibited from using the death penalty.

Euthanasia, doctor-assisted suicide: the administration of lethal drugs by a doctor to a terminally ill patient, if the intention is solely to alleviate pain, is seen in many jurisdictions as a special case (see the doctrine of double effect and the case of Dr John Bodkin Adams).[18]

Killing to prevent the theft of one's property is legal in Texas.[19][20] In 2013, a jury in south Texas acquitted a man who killed a prostitute who attempted to run away with his money.[21][22]

Killing an intruder who is found by an owner to be in the owner's home (having entered unlawfully): legal in most US states (see Castle doctrine).

Killing to prevent specific forms of aggravated rape or sexual assault - killing of attacker by the potential victim or by witnesses to the scene; legal in parts of the US and in various other countries.

In Pakistan, the killing of a woman or girl in specific circumstances (e.g., when she commits adultery) and is killed by her husband or other family members, known as honor killing, is not considered murder.[23][24]

Victim

￼

Murder in the House, Jakub Schikaneder.

All jurisdictions require that the victim be a natural person; that is, a human being who was still alive before being murdered. In other words, under the law one cannot murder a corpse, a corporation, a non-human animal, or any other non-human organism such as a plant or bacterium.

California's murder statute, Penal Code Section 187, was interpreted by the Supreme Court of California in 1994 as not requiring any proof of the viability of the fetus as a prerequisite to a murder conviction.[25] This holding has two implications. The first is a defendant in California can be convicted of murder for killing a fetus which the mother herself could have terminated without committing a crime.[25] The second, as stated by Justice Stanley Mosk in his dissent, is that because women carrying nonviable fetuses may not be visibly pregnant, it may be possible for a defendant to be convicted of intentionally murdering a person he did not know existed.[25]

Mitigating circumstances

Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than being found guilty of murder, if it can be proved that the killer was suffering from a condition that affected their judgment at the time. Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and medication side-effects are examples of conditions that may be taken into account when assessing responsibility.

Insanity

Main article: M'Naghten rules

Mental disorder may apply to a wide range of disorders including psychosis caused by schizophrenia and dementia, and excuse the person from the need to undergo the stress of a trial as to liability. Usually, sociopathy and other personality disorders are not legally considered insanity, because of the belief they are the result of free will in many societies. In some jurisdictions, following the pre-trial hearing to determine the extent of the disorder, the defence of "not guilty by reason of insanity" may be used to get a not guilty verdict.[26] This defence has two elements:

That the defendant had a serious mental illness, disease, or defect.

That the defendant's mental condition, at the time of the killing, rendered the perpetrator unable to determine right from wrong, or that what he or she was doing was wrong.

￼

Under New York law, for example:

§ 40.15 Mental disease or defect. In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defence that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1. The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2. That such conduct was wrong.

— N.Y. Penal Law, § 40.15[27]

Under the French Penal Code:

Article 122-1

A person is not criminally liable who, when the act was committed, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which destroyed his discernment or his ability to control his actions.

A person who, at the time he acted, was suffering from a psychological or neuropsychological disorder which reduced his discernment or impeded his ability to control his actions, remains punishable; however, the court shall take this into account when it decides the penalty and determines its regime.

Those who successfully argue a defence based on a mental disorder are usually referred to mandatory clinical treatment until they are certified safe to be released back into the community, rather than prison.[28]

Post-partum depression

Postpartum depression (also known as post-natal depression) is recognized in some countries as a mitigating factor in cases of infanticide. According to Dr. Susan Friedman, "Two dozen nations have infanticide laws that decrease the penalty for mothers who kill their children of up to one year of age. The United States does not have such a law, but mentally ill mothers may plead not guilty by reason of insanity."[29]

Unintentional

For a killing to be considered murder in nine out of fifty states in the US, there normally needs to be an element of intent. A defendant may argue that he or she took precautions not to kill, that the death could not have been anticipated, or was unavoidable. As a general rule, manslaughter[30] constitutes reckless killing, but manslaughter also includes criminally negligent (i.e. grossly negligent) homicide.[31]

Diminished capacity

In those jurisdictions using the Uniform Penal Code, such as California, diminished capacity may be a defence. For example, Dan White used this defence[32] to obtain a manslaughter conviction, instead of murder, in the assassination of Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.

Aggravating circumstances

Murder with specified aggravating circumstances is often punished more harshly. Depending on the jurisdiction, such circumstances may include:

Premeditation

Poisoning

Murder of a child

Murder of a police officer,[33] judge, firefighter or witness to a crime[34]

Murder of a pregnant woman[35]

Crime committed for pay or other reward, such as contract killing[36]

Exceptional brutality or cruelty

Murder for a political cause[33][37][38]

Hate crimes, which occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group.

Treachery (e.g. Heimtücke in German law)

In the United States and Canada, these murders are referred to as first-degree or aggravated murders. Murder, under English criminal law, always carries a mandatory life sentence, but is not classified into degrees. Penalties for murder committed under aggravating circumstances are often higher, under English law, than the 15-year minimum non-parole period that otherwise serves as a starting point for a murder committed by an adult.

Year-and-a-day rule

In some common law jurisdictions, a defendant accused of murder is not guilty if the victim survives for longer than one year and one day after the attack.[39] This reflects the likelihood that if the victim dies, other factors will have contributed to the cause of death, breaking the chain of causation. Subject to any statute of limitations, the accused could still be charged with an offence reflecting the seriousness of the initial assault.

With advances in modern medicine, most countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts of the case. This is known as "delayed death" and cases where this was applied or was attempted to be applied go back to at least 1966.[40]

In England and Wales, the "year-and-a-day rule" was abolished by the Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996. However, if death occurs three years or more after the original attack then prosecution can take place only with the Attorney-General's approval.

In the United States, many jurisdictions have abolished the rule as well.[41][42] Abolition of the rule has been accomplished by enactment of statutory criminal codes, which had the effect of displacing the common-law definitions of crimes and corresponding defences. In 2001 the Supreme Court of the United States held that retroactive application of a state supreme court decision abolishing the year-and-a-day rule did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution.[43]

In Philadelphia a 74-year-old man, William Barnes, was acquitted of murder charges on May 24, 2010. He was on trial for murder for the death of Philadelphia police officer Walter Barkley. Barnes shot Barkley on November 27, 1966, and served 16 years in prison for attempted murder. Barkley died on August 19, 2007, allegedly from complications of the wounds suffered nearly 41 years earlier.[44]

[wiki]

Exercising illegal colonial influence against a sovereign and unwilling Nation, is one thing. Murdering colonized and peacefull Nation's defenseless natural leadership while, natural leadership has either, fallen under subjugation, or, remain the victim of a hostage situation, is another, much more horrible, thing.

The colonialists, by potentially, crossing (hopefully not ever) the boundary between colonialism and first degree murder, shall, dreadfully, give to the members of the Greek Nation the legitimate right to self defence, within their sacred land, by all means.

We, the indigenous Greeks, are peacefull, civilized, creative, and usefull people. However, if we (hopefully not ever) become forced to face the horror of first-degree murders, against our innocent lives, then, the part of colonialists' natural leadership which is murderous, U2RIT's murderous part of, military, security, judicial, medical, secret services' and social foundations' personel, the murderous part of the actors of the universal commercial network, the murderous members of the jentiles and the murderous part of the "food and drink" people, become instantly our aggressive and lethal enemies and legitimately, we defend the lives of our families and our own lives, within our sacred land, by all means.

I hope that colonialists shall promptly understand that murdering innocent and defenceless civilians is not only a useless and horrible sin but eventually, it is a choice against, universal security and universal peace.